91–96 of 96 posts
There's not really any way they've got for resolving the situation where the intersection of motivated people and those whose work qualifies for inclusion is empty.
And yes, Nielsen is definitely notable. But give me Sibelius any day.
Sometimes, as is the case regarding 646 Pokemon, Wikipedia articles are suitable based upon completeness rather than notability. Historically, pornstars were somewhat rare and an readily accessible catalog compiled to pseudo-academic standards is an undertaking which is well facilitated by Wikipedia, while listing every chemist is a much more problematic task.
Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon
(The links are all to the individual names -- but most of those are just redirects to sublists, not individual articles.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the irony flies over my head, or are you seriously arguing that the absence of 'porn stars' from the 1800s makes scientists more important? 'porn stars' didn't even exist back then because the medium they use was only just invented! (I don't care about the actual discussion, but your reasoning is so flawed I was compelled to respond)
dredmorbius did a good job answering, but I'll put it in my words too. My post spoke not about the existence of porn stars then, but our awareness of them today. Their notability may be great in their lifetimes, but does not stand the test of time. Scientists, on the other hand, may not attain notability in their lifetimes, but their stature stands the test of time. At least in the case of some great ones.
Your conclusion is perfectly fine for the reasons that dredmorbius says, but that wasn't what he was disputing. He was disputing that your specific argument was so obviously faulty that it is just absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I lived in Maine for 22 years and really like the place. Can I not objectively write about it?
Without a doubt you could give some great insights and a lot of useful information. But to answer your question; No, you alone could not write an objective encyclopedia article on the subject.
Man, I wish Citizendium hadn't fell apart. It didn't venerate nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a doubt you could give some great insights and a lot of useful information. But to answer your question; No, you alone could not write an objective encyclopedia article on the subject.
So, anyone who has any real connection to a topic shouldn't be writing about what they know on Wikipedia. Awesome. Man, I wish Citizendium hadn't fell apart. It didn't venerate nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the irony flies over my head, or are you seriously arguing that the absence of 'porn stars' from the 1800s makes scientists more important? 'porn stars' didn't even exist back then because the medium they use was only just invented! (I don't care about the actual discussion, but your reasoning is so flawed I was compelled to respond)
Go read a satirical work written from before the 20th Century. Take your pick. Alice in Wonderland, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Gulliver's Travels, Dante's Inferno, anything by Shakespeare. There are endless references in those works, with varying amounts of veiling, to popular personages of the time. Some politicians and princes, but also what passes for the pop culture of the age, usually some mix of court per…
So, once again, it's ridiculous to suggest that porn actors are less important than scientists only supported by the argument that nobody remembers porn actors from that time. There weren't any!
(note that I'm not saying that one is more important than the other, I guess it depends on the definition of 'important', I don't know nor care - frankly I find the question quite trite and boring. My point is merely that the argument is ridiculous.)